My trip to New York with Daniel has begun, and it has been somewhat eventful so far. After a brisk 8 hour drive, with only one 15 minute stop for Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers and Frosties, we arrived in Richmond, VA where we stayed at one of Daniel's friends' houses. From there it was two hours to Washington DC, where we somehow were able to visit 3 museums (one of which we saw fly by us as we ran through it (can you guess which museum this was (pun intended)?)), walked the entirety of the mall, went to see the documents that framed our government, and visited the White House.
Inspired by the grandeur of the mall in DC, I went into a restroom near the Reflecting Pool in the most monumental of ways. As it turns out, the bathroom I was in just happened to be the local laundromat for the homeless people in the area, and I'm not sure if I ruined one of their washing machines or not...
Anyway, from there it was off to meet Rick and Susanna in New York. We arrived about 10 PM, and we were greeted by the expanse of Manhattan lights flowing beside the Hudson as we glided over the Verrezano Bridge. We parked one street over from their apartment, turned their living room into a bed, and went to sleep. The next day we were required to move our car to avoid the street sweeper, and after an hour and a half, decided to park semi-illegally 5 blocks down the road. We then ate breakfast at Tom's Place. Daniel got some huge, mega-fatty omelette with extra chipotle fat sauce. I chomped down an egg sandwich and chased it with a cup of joe. A lady 3 or 4 booths away from us introduced her kids to the owner as her "first marriage, second marriage, and third marriage." As we were getting up to leave, the owner of the restaurant grabbed my jacket out of my hand, opened it up, and put it up on my shoulders when I put my arms into it. I found it very odd and very nice, but I will admit it didn't change the size of my tip...
From there we nabbed a parking spot in front of Rick's apartment and trammed to the city. As we walked out of the subway we were immediately blasted by Macy's claiming to be "the largest department store in the world." We went into the store, looked at $130.00 scarfs, and decided that we weren't going to find any super deals. From there we headed to Times Square, taking care as we bobbed and weaved through the throngs of pedestrians. By then we were already taking every opportunity to save 8 seconds and jay walk. Daniel expertly gave directions to an elderly woman trying to get to a destination that we'd never been to before (he got the hang of the city pretty quickly). We then proceeded to almost get hit by an army truck driving on the sidewalk.
From there we hit the Rockefeller Center, stared at the ceiling in Grand Central Station, sampled martinis and gelatto in Little Italy, and wandered semi-aimlessly through Chinatown. While in Chinatown, Daniel was shopping for Christmas presents in a tiny shop, and I was looking at scarfs in the back. A lady kept pestering me to buy a scarf, so eventually I panicked, started screaming at Daniel that we were late for some non-existent pre-engagement and ran out of the store. After the traumatizing experience in the scarf section, the city started to loom over me, ominously staring at me from behind and threatening me. I begged Daniel to go home where we would be safe and warm.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Gay or Tranny? Can One Support Both?
I was watching a new game show on the Game Show Network, and the premise was simple: a panel of 5 random people must select from a panel of 5 other people to be awarded $25,000. The catch is that they cannot ask the contestants what they would do with the money, and therefore must decide based on some degree of prejudice. One of the contestants on the show was an Asian man who had come to America so that he could dress like a woman, inject a routine of female hormones, and one day get a sex change. He cited a few reasons why he felt like a woman in a man’s body, some of which being that he was bad at sports and was called girly by his peers in school. This individual got me thinking further on the arguments for GLBT (Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual) lifestyles, and the reasoning I came up with against these lifestyles was—in my opinion—convincing enough to place serious doubt on the validity of being pro-GLBT.
Before developing my arguments, it’s important to establish the distinction between socially constructed and genetically constructed. Socially constructed aspects of our person implies that these aspects were created by the society around us (parents, peers, etc), and therefore, are arbitrary measures of ourselves. For example: girls playing with dolls is argued to be socially constructed, and most people recognize that a boy playing with dolls is still a boy, albeit a “girly” one. Society has determined that girls should play with dolls and boys should not, and deviating from this construction is “abnormal.” Genetic aspects of our personalities are derived solely by our genetic makeup, and therefore are considered to be beyond the realm of accountability. Someone in court who argues that they were genetically compelled to act on anger in a violent way gains some level of compelling traction with the jury because the human mind cannot fight against genetics. There are many cases where aspects of our personalities are a combination of both, and is most commonly referred to as a genetic predisposition to do some act. For example, someone with a lower metabolism is more likely to gain weight eating the same amount as someone with a higher metabolism. It is critical to recognize that a genetic predisposition, no matter how great, is not an excuse for anything, unless genetics is totally responsible. Someone that is genetically predisposed towards anger cannot use his genetic makeup as an excuse for murder, since there was an aspect of choice involved.
With that being said, lets examine this Asian man I saw on the show. The reasons he presented for why he felt he should become a woman are undeniably socially constructed. Society tells boys that the ideal male is athletic, just like society tells girls that the ideal girl plays with dolls and likes the color pink. Clearly a boy who dresses dolls and loves the color pink is no less a boy just because society says so (in fact, pink has become very trendy among boys in fashion today!). So what is it that determines someone’s gender? Does a male that feels like a woman in a man’s body experience social pressure or genetic pressure to change one’s sex? Based on this person’s example, I’m convinced that it is social, and, although this is clearly not verified, I would be willing to bet that many transsexuals are reacting to social pressure.
One reason why I think this way, surprisingly, is homosexuality. Although these are stereotypes, many homosexual men aren’t necessarily good at sports and are certainly, to a larger degree, socially constructed as effeminate people. They have a keen sense for fashion and many of them have the same characteristics of our case study, the Asian male. Many non-homosexual males share similar characteristics as the stereotypical homosexual (commonly referred to as metrosexual). Yet despite these similar characteristics, they do not feel the need to change their sex. These people realize that just because they do not fit into society’s definition of gender, they’re still men.
So what are the things that make us the sex that we are, and can they conflict? Could one gene dictate what’s between someone’s legs, and yet another gene predispose a man to need to be a female? A predisposition to being emotional, physically frail, uncoordinated, and drawn to lace doesn’t conflict with what’s between that person’s legs. There is no one thing that can be pinned to being genetically opposed to gender, except, arguably, for someone’s attraction to the same sex.
This brings up an interesting dilemma for GLBT advocates. If someone is attracted to the same gender, should they change their own gender or be homosexual? If it is natural to be homosexual (and in their argument genetically determined), then changing someone’s gender is unnecessary and unnatural. If it is natural to change your gender to compliment the gender that you are attracted to, then homosexuality is unnecessary and unnatural. The choice between homosexuality and changing someone’s gender is redundant! The question that arises then, is what should an individual do? Since one set of genes that determines gender is conflicting with another set of genes that determine sexual attraction, which set of genes is inerrant? Can it even be considered a conflict? If it is not a conflict, then homosexuality is the natural course of action. If it is conflicting, then it either means that it is natural to get a sex change, or it is natural to genetically alter the person to become attracted to the opposite sex.
So for those out there who feel that someone can be a “woman” inside of a man’s body and that it is natural and moral to change that person’s sex, what is morally or naturally stopping me from finding a way to genetically engineer all future babies in the world to be attracted to the opposite sex, so as to eliminate this genetic contradiction before it becomes an issue? For those out there that feel that it is natural and moral to be a homosexual, do you also support transsexuals, and if you do, on what grounds?
Please note that this is only an argument against supporting both homosexuality and altering one’s sex. While I am opposed to both, this argument only suggests that a person must only stop supporting one. As of yet, I do not have a compelling non-religious explanation to be opposed to both.
Before developing my arguments, it’s important to establish the distinction between socially constructed and genetically constructed. Socially constructed aspects of our person implies that these aspects were created by the society around us (parents, peers, etc), and therefore, are arbitrary measures of ourselves. For example: girls playing with dolls is argued to be socially constructed, and most people recognize that a boy playing with dolls is still a boy, albeit a “girly” one. Society has determined that girls should play with dolls and boys should not, and deviating from this construction is “abnormal.” Genetic aspects of our personalities are derived solely by our genetic makeup, and therefore are considered to be beyond the realm of accountability. Someone in court who argues that they were genetically compelled to act on anger in a violent way gains some level of compelling traction with the jury because the human mind cannot fight against genetics. There are many cases where aspects of our personalities are a combination of both, and is most commonly referred to as a genetic predisposition to do some act. For example, someone with a lower metabolism is more likely to gain weight eating the same amount as someone with a higher metabolism. It is critical to recognize that a genetic predisposition, no matter how great, is not an excuse for anything, unless genetics is totally responsible. Someone that is genetically predisposed towards anger cannot use his genetic makeup as an excuse for murder, since there was an aspect of choice involved.
With that being said, lets examine this Asian man I saw on the show. The reasons he presented for why he felt he should become a woman are undeniably socially constructed. Society tells boys that the ideal male is athletic, just like society tells girls that the ideal girl plays with dolls and likes the color pink. Clearly a boy who dresses dolls and loves the color pink is no less a boy just because society says so (in fact, pink has become very trendy among boys in fashion today!). So what is it that determines someone’s gender? Does a male that feels like a woman in a man’s body experience social pressure or genetic pressure to change one’s sex? Based on this person’s example, I’m convinced that it is social, and, although this is clearly not verified, I would be willing to bet that many transsexuals are reacting to social pressure.
One reason why I think this way, surprisingly, is homosexuality. Although these are stereotypes, many homosexual men aren’t necessarily good at sports and are certainly, to a larger degree, socially constructed as effeminate people. They have a keen sense for fashion and many of them have the same characteristics of our case study, the Asian male. Many non-homosexual males share similar characteristics as the stereotypical homosexual (commonly referred to as metrosexual). Yet despite these similar characteristics, they do not feel the need to change their sex. These people realize that just because they do not fit into society’s definition of gender, they’re still men.
So what are the things that make us the sex that we are, and can they conflict? Could one gene dictate what’s between someone’s legs, and yet another gene predispose a man to need to be a female? A predisposition to being emotional, physically frail, uncoordinated, and drawn to lace doesn’t conflict with what’s between that person’s legs. There is no one thing that can be pinned to being genetically opposed to gender, except, arguably, for someone’s attraction to the same sex.
This brings up an interesting dilemma for GLBT advocates. If someone is attracted to the same gender, should they change their own gender or be homosexual? If it is natural to be homosexual (and in their argument genetically determined), then changing someone’s gender is unnecessary and unnatural. If it is natural to change your gender to compliment the gender that you are attracted to, then homosexuality is unnecessary and unnatural. The choice between homosexuality and changing someone’s gender is redundant! The question that arises then, is what should an individual do? Since one set of genes that determines gender is conflicting with another set of genes that determine sexual attraction, which set of genes is inerrant? Can it even be considered a conflict? If it is not a conflict, then homosexuality is the natural course of action. If it is conflicting, then it either means that it is natural to get a sex change, or it is natural to genetically alter the person to become attracted to the opposite sex.
So for those out there who feel that someone can be a “woman” inside of a man’s body and that it is natural and moral to change that person’s sex, what is morally or naturally stopping me from finding a way to genetically engineer all future babies in the world to be attracted to the opposite sex, so as to eliminate this genetic contradiction before it becomes an issue? For those out there that feel that it is natural and moral to be a homosexual, do you also support transsexuals, and if you do, on what grounds?
Please note that this is only an argument against supporting both homosexuality and altering one’s sex. While I am opposed to both, this argument only suggests that a person must only stop supporting one. As of yet, I do not have a compelling non-religious explanation to be opposed to both.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Gun Control Debate: VT Massacre
I have recently been reading through many arguments online about the future of gun control after the VT massacre. Here are some of my responses to most of the arguments that I have found.
This statement strikes a humbling chord with readers in it's clarity and power. The writer wisely chose to disregard the idea of interchangeable parts, and specifically, the ability to reload. Cho didn't have to worry about down time since nobody else in the room was legally allowed to have a gun.
Oh wait, there weren't guns allowed on campus when 32 people were murdered that day. Why does everyone think that allowing students and faculty to bring guns on campus will result in violent anarchist hysteria? Any student over 21 can obtain a concealed carry permit in the environs around virtually every campus in the country, yet they don't bring them on campus to decimate people. It isn't reasonable to think that every student at every institution is thinking, "man, if only I could bring my gun on campus I would definitely shoot someone."
Unfortunately, despite the general trend that crime is decreasing in the UK, crimes committed with handguns since the 1997 ban have risen. Strangely enough, areas with the highest amount of legally owned firearms sported below average gun-crime rates, while areas with lower amounts of legally owned firearms were well above average. This phenomenon is consistent with the US.
This is a quote from someone involved in the Brady Campaign concerning their approach to gun control.
The problem with more background checks is that, from 1993 to 1997, less than 15% of guns that convicted felons acquired were from flea markets (2%) or gun retailers and pawn shops (12%). 80% of their guns came from black market sources illegally, which are not subject to any amount of background checks. What's worse, Cho was able to obtain a gun from legal sources, by lying about mental instability on his forms and the inability to disclose confidential medical information in a background check (even though it is against the law for a mentally unstable person to obtain a handgun).
As far as anti-trafficking laws go, one must look no further than our current war on drugs.
The laws on the books aren't working. They certainly didn't work for the 32 murdered at VT. The bottom line is that criminals will circumvent laws; that is what criminals do.
Why does someone NEED an SUV? Why does someone NEED air-conditioning? Why does someone NEED any hobby?
I’ll take any one of them, thanks. If they pull their gun on me, they’re going to find my gun to their head, as well as the guns from the students in close proximity. I’m sure the professor’s gun will weigh into the equation as well. Of course, this is assuming that all of these people are crazed enough to count execution as a price they are willing to pay to be pissed about a scratch on their car. If any of those kids are mentally unstable enough to bring a gun to school and pull it on someone for those reasons, they’re going to bring it regardless of the law (all they have to do is travel 1000 feet away from campus to purchase it).
If there is a student in the classroom that is homicidal and pulls a weapon, he’ll be met with guns and stopped. If a homicidal person enters the room and pulls a weapon, he’ll be met with guns and stopped.
I would go out and get a concealed carry permit the second I got back to the states if GA Tech would let me keep it on campus where I live and thrive.
Cho used 15-round clips for his Glock 19, not 13. That’s the standard mag size for that weapon. That’s 5 more rounds per clip than would have been legal under the assault weapons ban. Your so-called “right” to a 15-round clip is worth nothing compared to the 5-10 extra lives Cho took because he was able to shoot 5 more times without having to re-load.
This statement strikes a humbling chord with readers in it's clarity and power. The writer wisely chose to disregard the idea of interchangeable parts, and specifically, the ability to reload. Cho didn't have to worry about down time since nobody else in the room was legally allowed to have a gun.
Guns on campus were the problem at Virginia Tech. The answer is not more guns on campus, but less. Follow along: No guns on campus means nobody gets shot. More guns on campus means 50 people get shot. It’s not hard. 'So easy, a caveman can do it.'
Oh wait, there weren't guns allowed on campus when 32 people were murdered that day. Why does everyone think that allowing students and faculty to bring guns on campus will result in violent anarchist hysteria? Any student over 21 can obtain a concealed carry permit in the environs around virtually every campus in the country, yet they don't bring them on campus to decimate people. It isn't reasonable to think that every student at every institution is thinking, "man, if only I could bring my gun on campus I would definitely shoot someone."
The UK’s violent crime rate has gone steadily down since 1995, and is now almost on par with 1980’s levels:http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp
UK murders with firearms in 2004/2005: 78
USA murders with firearms in 2004: 11,624
Unfortunately, despite the general trend that crime is decreasing in the UK, crimes committed with handguns since the 1997 ban have risen. Strangely enough, areas with the highest amount of legally owned firearms sported below average gun-crime rates, while areas with lower amounts of legally owned firearms were well above average. This phenomenon is consistent with the US.
We have no interest in your firearms. At all. The things we’ve proposed to keep guns out of criminals’ hands are:
1) Background checks for all gun sales.
2) Anti-trafficking laws, such as those limiting the bulk purchase of handguns.
3) Fully-funded enforcement of the laws already on the books.
This is a quote from someone involved in the Brady Campaign concerning their approach to gun control.
The problem with more background checks is that, from 1993 to 1997, less than 15% of guns that convicted felons acquired were from flea markets (2%) or gun retailers and pawn shops (12%). 80% of their guns came from black market sources illegally, which are not subject to any amount of background checks. What's worse, Cho was able to obtain a gun from legal sources, by lying about mental instability on his forms and the inability to disclose confidential medical information in a background check (even though it is against the law for a mentally unstable person to obtain a handgun).
As far as anti-trafficking laws go, one must look no further than our current war on drugs.
The laws on the books aren't working. They certainly didn't work for the 32 murdered at VT. The bottom line is that criminals will circumvent laws; that is what criminals do.
“Two guns now on the market…..
The “Grizzly H5527″ 18 Gauge can rapid fire up to 100 times with out reloading!
The “Senco SKS-G4450″ also is available in 18 gauage.”
Why does someone NEED that much power?
Why does someone NEED an SUV? Why does someone NEED air-conditioning? Why does someone NEED any hobby?
On any other day of the year, who would you rather have seated next to you in class: The hungover frat boy whose car was just scratched in the parking lot, or the girl who just lost her scholarship? What about the feuding couple in the back row? The stoned and tortured poet who’s angry that he has to sit through a lower-level Engineering class? The rich and entitled kid whose parents forced him into a state school as a punishment for abusing their country-club membership?
Now give all of them guns and pick your seat.
I’ll take any one of them, thanks. If they pull their gun on me, they’re going to find my gun to their head, as well as the guns from the students in close proximity. I’m sure the professor’s gun will weigh into the equation as well. Of course, this is assuming that all of these people are crazed enough to count execution as a price they are willing to pay to be pissed about a scratch on their car. If any of those kids are mentally unstable enough to bring a gun to school and pull it on someone for those reasons, they’re going to bring it regardless of the law (all they have to do is travel 1000 feet away from campus to purchase it).
If there is a student in the classroom that is homicidal and pulls a weapon, he’ll be met with guns and stopped. If a homicidal person enters the room and pulls a weapon, he’ll be met with guns and stopped.
I would go out and get a concealed carry permit the second I got back to the states if GA Tech would let me keep it on campus where I live and thrive.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Thanks
As I look back on this semester, I can't help but reflect on the good, the bad, and the bigger picture. If I could sum the majority of this semester up into one bit of witticism, I would say that--along this turn in the road--I focused all of my attention on the pebbles troubling my steps as I failed to properly appreciate some of the greatest scenery I have yet to stumble across. As we all do from time to time, and as I am now guilty of, I put up my blinders and I convinced myself that such a short amount of grief would somehow turn my life irreversibly sour. It's amazing sometimes how easy it is to plant our banner on one plot of land and declare it to be the known universe.In this rare moment when I'm feeling downright ethereal, I begin to receive clarity on what it means to feel peace, and to understand that love, while making all other things trivial, is what gives even those things all of the meaning in the world.
I came to this from the reality of just how meaningless we are. The great expanse of vacuum overwhelming our planet couldn't care less how my final presentation at work went. The stars are not phased by my distaste for my job. The very edges of the universe are not capable of caring about the mass of the planets and stars in our galaxy, much less the 5.6 lb weight I'm trying to remove from our washing machines. I am of no consequence to the universe, and how could I even begin to feel that I am? Whether I live or die, our planet will continue to slingshot around our sun, which will continue to look unimpressive amidst the flurry of lights speckling in the black, which is invisible to most of existence. If the universe one day became aware of itself, it would no more recognize the existence of the Earth than we recognize the stray electron that whips through our body as we process bodily fuel for energy. One cannot properly understand the concept of nothing unless he or she understands that it is precisely that which describes us.
The obvious question that arises from this is: if our impact on the universe is nothing, how could we be important to the being who created the vast expanse? For the life of me I can't understand how I could feel so often that I am somehow important in and of myself to God. This has led me to adjust my definition of a fool to be one who thinks his existence contributes something meaningful to the being who forms massive hunks of fire and hurls them through the dark. To God, we could appear as a brief speck of light, flickering no more than an instant in the depth of eternity, which barely gleams off the corner of his eye. It seems most logical that God's time be spent birthing stars than caring for the glowing speck that rejected him but an instant ago. After all, in a moment our light will go out, turning all of our history, technology, yearnings, moments of joy and sadness, our triumphs over failures, our relationships, and our attempts at true love into a vapor among a sea of vapors that will dissipate long before they reach the face of the Lord Almighty.
This brings a renewed fragrance to the love of an everlasting entity that calls me by name! He knows me intimately, my every thought and desire he cares for deeply. Despite my aggressive rejection of God, He sacrificed his only son for me. Who in their right mind would crucify their most prized treasure to save our prideful, arrogant, and utterly pitiful rejection of him? Why would He remember the speck when the speck sees no need to remember Him? He has taken that which means nothing, and has made it everything. He desires for us to be with him, though we matter not to the workings of his universe. It is in this that I find understanding for who He is and how I should respond.
The most convicting response I must express now is one of thankfulness, and I would like to take this opportunity to show my gratitude for those who, like God, desired to invest a portion of their existence with me. In the last 9-12 months here in Louisville, you have brought richness to my time here through our similar bond in He who provides richness, and my prayer is that I have been able to bless your lives as much as you have blessed mine. Despite the trivial shortcomings of the circumstances of my stay here, I believe that it was not by accident, and I can genuinely say that I am overjoyed to have spent this flicker of eternity with you all. I hope that we will see each other again before our moment in the universe is over.
Peace, Love, and Gap.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Everything but the John Hancock
"For although they claimed to be wise, they were fools."I keep coming back to this verse, one because I find it a very accurate depiction of the human condition, and two because I am memorizing the passage this is in and must return to it often to retain the information. But at any rate, I’ll move on to a quick background of the context.
In Paul's letter to the church in Rome we find the next step, albeit a huge step, in gaining understanding of salvation. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John teach us how to drive the car; Romans teaches us how the car works. Chapter 1 starts with Paul's introduction as well as his written desire for the people of Rome and his longing to visit them. From verse 18 to the end of the Chapter, he focuses on the wrath of God, and it appears he was specifically addressing the gentiles, although clearly it can be applied to all.
One point he makes in verse 19 is crucial to understanding God's nature, and it states, "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." The universe has God's fingerprints all over it! Really stop and think about that.
The first thing I think of when I read this passage is evolution, and more specifically, the big bang. For anyone who is still convinced that an uncontrolled, natural explosion of dust particles colliding (which magically existed one day...) would create the incredibly precise and ordered environment you and I live in, I have an experiment for you. Take a large barrel of paint and place a sufficient amount of explosives inside to create a masterpiece on the walls of the room. Make sure to pour in all the colors you will need. Run the ignition wire out of the room, close the door, and press the button. Open the door and record the results.
What do you already KNOW will happen? Although I will not discount the idea that one could paint The Last Supper in this manner, just like a room full of monkeys could write the entire works of Shakespeare, I think I can say with confidence that our attempt at this experiment will not do so. You will have on your hands an unsalvageable mess.
From the knowledge that order does not come from a chaotic explosion, look out onto the earth, or even to the stars, and evaluate your view of the world. What did cause the universe, and even more perplexing, why do we find this planet that we live on so beautiful? I think that evolution can attempt to explain attraction to the opposite sex with reasonable weight, but what evolutionary purpose does it serve to find the world we live in pleasing visually? Why do we find it breathtaking at times? Why do we all find that the pictures on the back of the postcards in Walgreens belong on the back of that postcard? Who among us has never looked up at the night sky in awe? We have an unexplainable, and decidedly common, attraction to our environment.
Beyond the attraction, study the integration of the human with his environment. There are two main ways to look at this integration. The first is that of the evolutionist, who believes that we evolved to fit whatever the environment happened to be on this planet. One major issue with this idea is the fact that no other planets that we have found-as of yet-have exhibited anywhere close to the same level of evolutionary advancement as our planet has (we believe to have found bacteria on Mars, but according to our timeline bacteria is a speck at the beginning). We are not finding alternative forms of life on other planets despite the fact that they all are rich in chemical compounds. In fact, life as we know it cannot sustain itself without a relatively precise environment.
Another way to look at this planet is through the eyes of integration. The earth and humanity were designed for each other. All of the things that make up our tolerances to heat, sound, light, pressure, stimuli, etc point towards a being designed from the beginning for this world; a being that has fewer intermediary fossils than the ancient bones of the far preceding dinosaur. If we truly had to spend billions of years mutating to become acclimated to our environment, where are the Hukeys (or Monkans) that were not genetically fit for the job?
I'm thinking about all of these things as I go through Romans 1:18-21, and then it hits me in verse 22. I don't need to see a lightning bolt write the name of Jesus in the sky to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't need to hear about the blind man who, while phasing in and out of life, saw himself in the emergency room and was able to accurately describe his doctor upon awakening. I don't need to witness bringing a cold, dead body back from the grave. God has made his presence clearly evident, in much the same way that in 15,000 years, when someone uncovers the Mona Lisa, they will know there was a creator behind the beauty.
Yet, amidst all the evidence, we refuse to acknowledge that God is Lord, and we fail to thank him for all he has done. Instead, the world does not even give God a chance, discarding him before they even begin their search for answers. He's right in front of us, but our eyes are focused on the void beyond his face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
